Madras High Court held that issuance of communication to pay penalty amount within prescribed period, despite of interim orders of division bench directing customs department not to take coercive steps, is untenable in law.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that construction services and other services which are necessary for the renting of the business falls in the definition of ‘input service’ as provided under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per paragraph 3.2 of the Instruction no. 3/2016 dated 10th March 2016, cases selected for scrutiny on a TP risk parameter has to be referred to TPO after obtaining approval from PCIT/ CIT. Non-complying with the instruction renders the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
CESTAT Delhi held that unless there is an undertaking by the principal manufacturer that they would discharge the duty liability (notification no. 83/94-CE), the job worker is liable to discharge duty on the clearances from the premises of job worker.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee has option to determine the method of valuation and the AO has no power to reject the method resorted by the assessee as no infraction of methodology has been brought out by the AO.
ITAT Kolkata ruled in Mahendra Kumar Parakh vs. ITO that cash deposit during demonetization was from past savings, directing AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,50,000.
In Hira Lal Kadlabju vs. ACIT, ITAT Amritsar remits the case back to the assessing officer as the ownership of seized cash remains undecided pending High Court determination.
Vodafone Idea Limited vs. Union of India case: Karnataka High Court remands matter to assessing officer for considering C Forms, affected by COVID-19.
NCLAT Delhi held that liquidator is obliged to consider the average of the value arrived as per Regulation 35 of the CIRP Regulation, 2016.
ITAT Chandigarh held that disallowance for late deposit of employees’ share of PF/ ESI contribution to relevant funds beyond prescribed due date under respective Act is duly sustainable in law.
